Scott Adams

> but hey, who would have thought Trump could win the the Republican nomination half a year ago?! Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert) did, and has been blogging about the reasons why for quite some time (http://blog.dilbert.com). Based on those same reasons, he also predicts a win for Trump in the general election. Whether you agree with his points or not, he definitely provides some interesting food for thought (beyond just rah, rah, Trump, Make America Great Again, etc).

“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” ― John Steinbeck Also remember you are seeing a media/attention filter on everything. Nobody reports or passes on the mundane things. Instead controversies have to be found that outrage some people, all the better to get eyeballs on the TV/site and go viral on Facebook. I do recommend following Scott Adams' blog (creator of Dilbert). He has an mba, is a trained hypnotist, and various other skills unrelated to comics. He has been writing about the various techniques Donald Trump is using, and why they are so successful. (Note not endorsing Trump, but rather observing.) http://blog.dilbert.com/

Scott Adams' blog is also great: http://blog.dilbert.com/

Jeez, everybody is all bent out of shape on this. The Republican establishment hate Trump nearly as much as they hate Clinton so with Republicans controlling The House and The Senate how much "damage" is President Trump going to be able to do. The really interesting part of all this was reading Scott Adams blog who proposed the idea that Trump is a master persuader (probably this is just a fancy name for populist). He has been blogging about persuasion techniques and about cognitive biases and how humans are irrational creatures 90% of the time and are open to persuasion techniques. This seems to offend everybodies sensibilities but for me it's been fascinating and a real eye-opener. The reaction (bias?) in the media has been particularly interesting and has forever changed my world view. If you have the time it's probably worth reading the posts for the past year or so, http://blog.dilbert.com/ It won't be so interesting now that we know the result but the ideas and methods of persuasion he talks about will shape the future for a long time to come. The cognitive dissonance being shown by the media is particularly funny. It's amazing that they really don't understand that a large percentage of the population voted for Trump because he probably represents for them a reasonable hope for change. I'm waiting for somebody to suggest that nobody actually voted for him and instead he rigged the election all by himself.

Does nobody read Scott Adams' Blog[0]? He has had the best analysis of Trump so far. He seems a little out there so you have to go back all the way to the start of his analysis, but it is some pretty good stuff, and has been extremely accurate, pronouncing the Jeb! campaign dead the day Trump called him low energy, etc. It is a very interesting way of interpreting the world, and the comment sections on the articles were usually pretty good, but in recent times has swiftly devolved from a discussion of the technique, so they are disabled. Also, Hillary has someone who is actually understands persuasion now, which is resulting in some actual back and forth. Its a great read to test your understanding and acceptance of what the human unconscious is both capable and in control of. Here's a good article that has some links to his initial descriptions he used to describe Trump[1]. [0]: http://blog.dilbert.com/ [1]: http://reason.com/reasontv/2015/10/06/donald-trump-is-a-master-wizard

Really great piece, take the time to read it. I've been quite prone to this, and one thing that's helped is building systems vs. goals, per Scott Adams[1][2]. If you read many stories of successful people, you see a pattern in having habits or systems that were built at some point that lead to those successes, as opposed to setting a specific goal and trying to plan around that. [1]https://blog.dilbert.com/2013/11/18/goals-vs-systems/ [2]https://outline.com/TGYvt2

Scott Adams calls this the "talent stack". https://blog.dilbert.com/2016/11/28/the-trump-talent-stack/ Basically: individually these skills might not produce truly impressive results. Combined they produce great value. I have yet to figure out what my second "talent" in my talent stack could be. When I do figure it out I have a feeling things come much quicker.

Scott Adams has had a number of very interesting (and I think insightful) pieces on North Korea and how Trump could be the first person in half a century to make the geopolitical situation with respect to North Korea better instead of worse. Here is one of them: http://blog.dilbert.com/2018/01/17/north-korea-can-become-switzerland-…

For elaboration on how cognitive bias causes people to interpret the facts in different ways, I always recommend: http://blog.dilbert.com/2017/08/17/how-to-know-youre-in-a-mass-hysteri…

Not really HN style, but you can try Cnn [1], Bbc[2] or Guardian International[3], alternatively Dilber [4] [1] http://edition.cnn.com/ [2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/ [3] https://www.theguardian.com/international [4] http://blog.dilbert.com/

The science in favor of vaccination is very straightforward and well-understood. It's easy to run double-blind tests and determine the truth of the matter. The science in favor of anthropogenic global warming includes two parts: well-understood physics and chemistry (which is quite trustworthy and is actually science), and a bunch of conflicting computer models of a chaotic and poorly understood system with a huge number of inputs and feedback loops (which I'm not sure why anyone trusts). This blog post puts it pretty well: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/158778029326/how-to-change-my-biases-on-c…

They are doing this to Scott Adams, Trump, Snowden and others on twitter. I'm following their accounts and seldom times see any updates from them, the updates are filtered (shadowbanned). Scott Adams himself mentions the same: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/159566176596/am-i-shadowbanned-on-twitter If you tag people with whom you have a strict moral disagreement to avoid doing business with them, this is actually what national socialists did back in the 1930s with their own Jewish community. It is a slippery rope.

He's blogged about it several times. According to his blog posts, he can track which posts get "shadowbanned" by blog analytics. Apparently, his posts regarding Trump or climate science aren't showing up in a lot of his followers' feeds. Even more remarkably, he seems to have gotten around it for now with code words - tweeting that the post is about kittens when it's really about a supposedly shadowbanned subject, which has supposedly restored his normal blog traffic rates from Twitter. See http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156806516721/the-social-media-hive-mind and http://blog.dilbert.com/post/157904840851/dopamine-puppets Sure looks like Twitter is in the business of censoring content that doesn't fit their political views. If they'll do that, there's no telling what else they'll censor.

Adams has recently come out as a Trump supporter. Maybe that's it? He's still a strange choice of target, since he's not (as far as I know) one of the crazies screaming about "cucks" or Benghazi or whatever. Personally I've found his blog to be pretty helpful for understanding the Trump phenomenon better. http://blog.dilbert.com/

Scott Adams, Dilbert creator and Trump commentator, noticed this happening a while ago too. http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156377416856/should-twitter-and-facebook-… I follow him and never see his tweets despite spending a lot of time on TweetDeck throughout the day. When I open the Twitter app, his tweets are never shown on my 'In case you missed it' section. His tweets typically get high engagement, definitely higher than other tweets Twitter recommends, so I find it a bit strange.

I travel with my wife and 2 kids. I have NOTHING! And yet, I am hyper aware of how I might be perceived. It's one thing to fight the good fight! And its another to poke the bear. I don't agree with your "maximum laziness", perhaps the author was arrogant? Or ignorance? I love the idea of porn on a burner phone, but even then... (Legal) porn has a very different meaning in different countries. The author is really playing with fire. Scott Adams (Dilbert guy) suggested a few months ago a "Better Surrender Technique"[1]. Surely this could be applied to the U.S. Customs... [1] http://blog.dilbert.com/post/147192672916/better-surrender-technique

Scott Adams has an excellent explanation of this today in his blog "The Illusion of Knowledge" http://blog.dilbert.com/post/155121836641/the-illusion-of-knowledge A snippet: "no non-scientist can evaluate the claims of climate science because BOTH sides look 100% convincing to the under-informed. So how did the public respond to my claim that BOTH sides of the debate look convincing? They berated me for not sufficiently researching materials from ONE side of the debate that happens to be their side. Many people suggested that I could simply do some homework, on my own, and get to the bottom of climate science. That is a massive public illusion."

For example, members of that sub demonised a pizzeria owner with no evidence whatsoever I'm guessing that you say that based mostly on media coverage like the recent New York Times article? I think Scott Adams (author of Dilbert) has a more accurate view, which is that there is in fact a mountain of "obvious" evidence, but despite this almost all the connections and conclusions are likely false. I think it's worth the time to contrast his view with the "no evidence whatsoever" explanation that most of the media has taken: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/153821538056/about-pizzagate.

I recommend this article by Scott Adams: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152998516891/the-de-hitlerization-of-your…

Scott Adams said it best [1]: The ideal arrangement for a new government – and one that requires no change to the Constitution – would feature a President Trump running weekly televised meetings (yes, like The Apprentice) to decide the big issues. And sitting in every meeting should be Bernie Sanders and Michael Bloomberg, supported by their experts, arguing their cases. [1] http://blog.dilbert.com/post/138023808851/the-second-american-revoluti…

I have not, but it's on my list. In fact, I'd like to read all of the recommended books/articles/etc in chapters 3 and 4 of Scott Adams' Persuasion Reading List (http://blog.dilbert.com/post/129784168866/the-persuasion-reading-list)…

SNL writer Chris Kelly 'How bout instead of an “I Voted” sticker, everyone who votes Trump gets to wear a scarlet T for the rest of their lives?'[0] Person thinks 40% of people are crazy, racist, hates women etc. Maybe the person who thinks that is the one not understanding the situation. Clinton: Read Wikileaks, study Clinton Foundation (Haiti) Trump: Read news from both sides msm and Breitbart & similar. Scott Adams blog gives you some sense what is going on.[1] [0]http://archive.is/NiRJ4 [1]http://blog.dilbert.com

Scott Adams, the Dilbert guy, has some amazing analysis of why he thinks Trump will win: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/136818042136/trump-and-climate-science-ma…

If you haven't been reading http://blog.dilbert.com/ recently, you should be. It's fascinating

You might be interested in what Scott Adams (the Dilbert cartoonist) has to say about the current presidential election: http://blog.dilbert.com/

Hey, if you haven't seen it before, this article by Scott Adams (the Dilbert guy) is a great summary of gender bias in the workplace: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/114055529676/my-verdict-on-gender-bias-in… If you're going to read it, don't just skim it; read it from end to end.

> I don't expect anything consequential to occur out of either Trump or Sanders. For anyone who hasn't seen it yet, Scott Adams take on Trump and persuasion/influence is fascinating. There is so much interesting stuff there, that I'll just link to the blog: http://blog.dilbert.com/

Disclaimer: I like SA With that bias out of the way, I would recommend you go back to the source and then judge him. I can't find the source post for the first one, but the second one is here: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/102881545031/pegs-and-holes If you read it carefully, you will realize that he is not defending rapists, he is saying you can look at the situation as a mental health problem - similar to the EU view of drug abusers - they are not criminals, they are patients. He has, multiple times on his blog, put forth his theory that humans are 'moist robots' - he does not believe in the concept of free will; so this post is entirely consistent with that.

It's easy to feel outraged, but you'd be just playing Trump's game. Does he believe there is a chance that the US will actually ban Muslims from entering the country? Or even that it would be a good thing if it did? No, he just wants to say outrageous things and get people talking about him. The reasonable person's response is to simply ignore him, much like you would a toddler throwing a tantrum. Scott Adams has a great post on the Trump tactics, highly recommended http://blog.dilbert.com/post/126589300371/clown-genius.

I'm standing by my prediction that Donald Trump will withdraw himself from the nomination prior to the Iowa primaries (and it will take these poll numbers continuing past Christmas for me to think otherwise) [1]. If anyone has a chance at derailing my beliefs so far, it's been Scott Adams (of Dilbert) and his ongoing series of blogs posts about the 'Master Wizard Hypothesis' [2]. He's essentially arguing that linguistic wizardry can trump (sorry) policy and credibility, and that the Donald is a master. Likely for entertainment purposes only, but he's been right on this matter more than Nate Silver so far! Every time you see 'low energy' Bush, 'nice guy' Carson, or 'that face' Fiorina in the press, Adams makes more sense. [1] https://twitter.com/jacobaldridge/status/632163459388432384 [2] http://blog.dilbert.com/